DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/30/2026 has been entered.
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the communication filed 3/30/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seabrook (US20220339680A1) (cited by Applicant) in view of Pendurti (WO 2022/093916 A1) and Carter (WO 9701399 A1).
Re claim 1, Seabrook teaches fluid containment system (abstract), comprising:
a body (ref. 10, 26) having a set of panels and seals (¶ [0070] generally air-tight, inherent; see also ¶ [0026] negative air flow) that define an interior cavity;
one or more fluid supply sources (ref. 24) fluidly coupled to the interior cavity, the one or more fluid supply sources providing at least one fluid to the interior cavity (¶ [0070], [0076]);
a sensor (¶ [0077] safety sensors…chemical sensors….temperature sensors to detect leaked solvent; see also ¶ [0086] LEL detector…regulate the air flow based on real time concentrations of solvent vapor) positioned within the interior cavity, the sensor configured to detect a vapor threshold within the interior cavity, the vapor threshold formed from an evaporated portion of the at least one fluid within the interior cavity; and
a controller (¶ [0077], [0086] air flow control system…[u]sing predetermined LEL or LFL requirements of the selected solvent, the control system can regulate the air flow based on real time concentrations of solvent vapor within the ventilated solvent containment system.) communicatively coupled to the sensor, the controller configured to provide control signals for directing fluid movement of the at least one fluid based on one or more signals received from the sensor;
a pneumatics panel (ref. 48 display panel and ref. 50 control box, ¶ [0078] controls hardware and therefore the pneumatics involved in transporting solvents; see fig. 14), said pneumatics panel mounted on/forming at least a portion of a wall panel forming the body of the fluid containment system (see fig. 14).
Seabrook does not disclose the body and the one or more fluid supply sources are a fluidly sealed system that contain the at least one fluid therein (Seabrook appearing to have a continuous negative pressure vent system and does not explicitly disclose an exhaust valve or control) and a rear seal coupled to an end of the body and to a back side of the pneumatics panel to fluidly seal the interior cavity of the body from an exterior environment.
Regarding “fluidly sealed system”, Pendurti teaches it is very well-known in the fluid containment of volatile chemicals system art (abstract, ¶ [0003]-[0004]) to provide a body and one or more fluid supply sources are a fluidly sealed system that contain the at least one fluid therein (¶ [00156]-[00157] isolating…interlocks…seal the process chamber; ¶ [000159]] exhaust valve may be closed to prevent leaving the environmental system). Pendurti further discloses a LEL sensor and control of valves to avoid undesirable levels of vapors (¶ [0098]).
Regarding “a rear seal”, Carter discloses it is very old and well-known in the hazardous chemical processing art (abstract, p. 1 lines 6-16) to provide a pneumatics panel (ref. 70 control unit, ref. 78 control panel) enclosing control equipment including pneumatic pumps and valves (ref. 104, 130), said control unit attached to the rear wall frame (p. 10 lines 31-35); and to provide gaskets (ref. 25) and to form a sealed enclosure for the wall frame and wall sections which prevents contaminants from entering the surrounding environment (p. 7 lines 9-26). Here, it being prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to thus provide a rear seal on either the pneumatics panel or the wall panel containing the pneumatics panel of Seabrook, in order to prevent contamination escaping the body and to safely enclose the control unit for the pneumatics from the environment.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the body and the one or more fluid supply sources of Seabrook to further be a fluidly sealed system that contain the at least one fluid therein, as suggested by Pendurti, in order to provide a controlled processing environment; and to further include a rear seal, as suggested by Carter, in order to enclose the pneumatic equipment and prevent environmental leaks from the body.
Re claims 8 and 16¸Independent claims 8 and 16 define over claim 1 only in the recitation a system for additive manufacturing comprising a cleaning station; a method. Regarding “additive manufacturing” this is a statement of intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Seabrook since Seabrook is capable of use in additive manufacturing, if so desired. See MPEP 2114. Seabrook further discloses cleaning (¶ [0004] cleaning) and a method (¶ [0020], [0025], claim 13).
Re claim 2, 9 and 17¸ Seabrook further discloses one or more pumps communicatively coupled to the controller, wherein the controller, upon receiving a signal from the sensor indicative of the vapor threshold, directs the one or more pumps to stop pumping fluid.
Re claims 3, 10 and 18, Seabrook further discloses further comprising: one or more valves (¶ [0023], [0079], [0102]) communicatively coupled to the controller, wherein the controller, upon receiving a signal from the sensor indicative of the vapor threshold, directs the one or more valves to close (¶ [0086], [0102] terminal signals to all solvent valves).
Re claims 4 and 11 and 19¸ Seabrook further discloses wherein the controller, upon receiving a signal from the sensor indicative of the vapor threshold, directs the light emitter to emit light corresponding to an indication of the vapor threshold (¶ [0099] Notification, alerts, or information…displayed on display pane 48).
Re claims 5 and 12, Seabrook further discloses wherein the sensor is configured to detect volatile solvents (¶ [0077], [0086]).
Re claim 15, Seabrook further discloses a pneumatic flow control system (ref. 48, 50) configured to evacuate fluid from the fluid containment system to a vented location (¶ [0074], [0079] vented cabinet 26 can also be fitted with one or more air flow conduits to create a negative pressure; [0084] air flow regulator adjusted…to direct flow of solvent exhaust to the ventilation and exhaust system).
Re claims 6-7 and 13-14 and 20, Seabrook discloses as shown above. Regarding “a front door seal, wherein the front door seal comprises an ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM) seal affixed to the inside of a machine enclosure door; and wherein the rear seal comprises an EPDM seal”, the selection of a known material for use in sealing known panel/door seals is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, for purposes of chemical resistant sealing. See also ¶ [0070] air-tight structure. See MPEP 2144.07. See also Carter gaskets 25 of foam tape or other resilient material. Regarding “one or more frame tubes; a rear upper panel seal, wherein the rear upper panel seal comprises an EPDM seal affixed to the one or more frame tubes; and a front upper panel seal, wherein the front upper panel seal comprises an EPDM seal affixed to the one or more frame tubes.”, as discussed above, the use of known seals for a cabinet “frame” is prima facie obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/30/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive in part. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as shown in the rejection above.
In response to Applicant’s arguments as to the modification rendering Seabrook inoperable for its intended use, Examine respectfully disagrees. Here, as noted by Applicant, Seabrook seeks to create a negative pressure (emphasis added) to remove solvent vapors. Here, the use of seals on the cabinet does not prevent the functionality of reducing the solvent vapors below the LFL/LEL, even assuming arguendo said seals prevented all airflow, the system would merely pull to the vacuum limit of the vacuum pump/blower. Moreover, Applicant’s concerns are simply overcome by reversing the references to cite Pendurti as the primary reference. Here, Pendurti explicitly teaches a sealed system and introducing clean/neutral gas (in addition to operating the blower) (¶ [0098]). As such, the modification of Seabrook to be sealed, as taught by Pendurti, does not render the combination inoperable, but more effective at reducing environmental contamination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7299. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am to 6:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Barr can be reached on 571-272-1414. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
KEVIN G. LEE
Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/KEVIN G LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1711